More Naturally Safe Products

Following on from yesterday's post about the "Natural = Safe" mantra being false (or, at least, not true unless supported by evidence in specific cases), the Mind&Body supplement in the 12th December, 2006 issue of The West Australian has an article on "Are spray tans safe?". Ignoring for the moment why any newage person should be using spray tans (how natural or traditional are they?), revel in this tortured line of reasoning that spray tans are natural (from a specialist dermatologist who "produces her own skincare range"):

"The active ingredient, dihydroxyacetone, is oxidised when exposed to air, creating a brown colour that is the tan. DHA is extracted from a chemical called glycerol which is taken from sugar-based plants like sugar cane, sugar beet and, more recently, rape seeds."

So it's a nasty long chemical name, that's extracted from another chemical, that comes from a plant. Phew! Well, that's okay then.

A general manager of a spray tan company advises those who are worried about "chemicals" in their spray tan.

"Some spray tans have more than 30 to 40 chemicals in their solutions. Instead, our product comprises only three: DHA 102, natural bronzers and highly purified water."

This is the quantity rather than quality argument of chemical toxicity. More chemicals are obviously more dangerous than fewer (haven't we all seen those mad scientists on late night scifi films - they're surrounded by chemicals!) rather than addressing the specific toxicities of individual chemicals. EoR is also surpised and elightened to learn that "natural bronzers" comprise a single chemical.

The article goes on to mention a side effect or two that some people may experience with DHA: inflammation, irritation, slight to severe rash and extreme itching.

Which means that the "natural" spray tans are safer or better than the "chemical" spray tans in exactly which way? The only difference appears to be in the marketing spin applied to the products.